I’m still waiting for my ray gun. Unless the aliens are made of paper, and move really slow, and are in the same room as me, I’ve got nothing. The space princess is going to do more damage throwing her high heels at them.
Even after $100B, self-driving cars are going nowhere
221–230 of 501 posts
Re: Even after $100B, self-driving cars are going nowhere
#222So? Okay, we're not there yet with autonomous vehicles, and have spend tons of money on it. But the tech we have now didn't exist a decade ago. Give it another decade.
Another decade for prototype self-driving cars to cover another state part of the US? $100BN in funding these gadgets and contraptions that don't work. Not even Tesla FSD can drive itself reliably at night without supervision, because it is not Level 5. Until LiDAR becomes more cheaper and these cars CAN drive themselves safely at night without supervision in any state at scale and as advertised like a robotaxi, then…
LiDAR is finally cheap.
I repeat my comment on LiDAR that I gave a few days ago. The gist is that LiDAR is cheap and you will be able to buy a LiDAR with sufficient resolution for in the next 1-2 years because it will be integrated in normal passenger cars for L2/L3 assistants. These cars are coming out now or in the next year.
LiDAR is finally getting cheap. OEMs (like VW) are very price sensitive. It is estimated the sensors from Valeo cost about 500 dollars. The fact that you see more and more normal passenger cars with higher resolution LiDARs means that LiDARs are getting cheaper.
The Audi A8 used Valeo's (with Ibeo) first generation low resolution LiDAR Scala 1 from the automotive supplier Valeo. Mercedes new models will be using Valeo's second (or third) generation LiDAR. All these are used for L2/L3 assistants. Valeo is a traditional large automotive supplier.
Luminar, a public company from the US, cooperates with Volvo. Some models will come with a LiDAR in the base configuration. These are "new LiDARs" with high resolution.
Innoviz, a 'startup' from Isreal, will supplies LiDARs to VW. Its angular resolution is (in its focus area) about 0.1 (or 0.2) degrees, which is sufficient for higher levels of autonomy and surpasses/equals the resolution of the expensive Velodyne sensors of the past. They will probably be in the same price range. Due to the limited FOV due to the technology, you will need multiply LiDARs.
Many new models from Chinese car brands will also ve equipped with a LiDAR. Most of them with Chinese LiDAR manufacturers like RoboSense or Hesai. Some are equipped by European manufactures like Ibeo/ZF. For example, there is the automotive sensor AT128 by Hesai. It targets normals vehicles (see price range above) and claims a similar performance (except for FOV, so you need multiple) like the Velodyne Ultra Puck (~$50000).
So costs of LiDARs are a not the very expensive obstacle they were in the past. The only problem could be that the new LiDAR manufactures cannot scale up series production. For example, Ibeo just filed for insolvency because they could not close another round after aggressively increasing spending in the past years.
Re: Even after $100B, self-driving cars are going nowhere
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Moreover, just two decades later, anyone could get their genome sequenced for pocket change by companies like 23andMe, founded in 2006. Sequencing your genome is still relatively expensive, Probably around $15k. 23andme does not sequence your genome. They look at specific regions looking for specific markers. This doesn't invalidate your point of how great progress has been, though.
You're right. I updated my comment. Thank you!
Whole genome sequencing is commercially available for $299.
Re: Even after $100B, self-driving cars are going nowhere
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll be blunt about this. Most of this research is funded in the US and the hyper individualistic Americans as a group don't believe in public transport.
My commuter train be packed though.
Where? And is it filled with people coming from the local P&R?
Re: Even after $100B, self-driving cars are going nowhere
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hyperloop is crap, just go with highspeed trains. They get the job done in city corridors. But you can't have a train stop in front of your house... Nor can you build massive tubes everywhere in place of cheap roads. Walking, Bikes, Busses, Metros, Trains, Cars, Planes. They all have a place in how we transport, right now the distribution between them is just out of whack.
Hyperloop is still cool because you could have really fast transit over large areas. Mass transit across cities is still quite slow. High speed trains are fine but just not fast enough. Imagine a large city where you could get from one side to the other in only a few minutes.
I gather that you never used public transport in Tokyo.
Re: Even after $100B, self-driving cars are going nowhere
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll be blunt about this. Most of this research is funded in the US and the hyper individualistic Americans as a group don't believe in public transport.
That’s really not true. Americans love good public transportation where it’s available and works well. Most US cities have lots of buses, and many have light rail. But in a big country with a spread-out population, public transportation is tough. American corporations perhaps aren’t as interested in public transportation, because there is no money to be made. And that is who is largely funding this self-driving vehic…
The built up areas of the US have almost the same population density as the EU ones.
Nobody cares about the Rockies or farm fields or Death Valley.
Re: Even after $100B, self-driving cars are going nowhere
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
The knowledge gained is forever. Once we learn something in science and engineering…
… it vanishes when the companies fold?
Unlikely. The knowledge is with the employees, filed patents, etc.
in fact, the information is probably constantly leaking out of the company. It’s hard to keep secrets.
Re: Even after $100B, self-driving cars are going nowhere
#228The main lesson here seems to be about the value of incrementalism. This project was always pitched as self driving cars in one leap, which set huge expectations and more or less ruled out just shipping incrementally better driver assistance year after year. Probably because the space became dominated by Google and Page-ist futurism, so they weren't able to sell anything that would be expected to come with an actual…
It’s because self driving doesn’t provide much value until you can remove the human. If you can remove the human, last mile package delivery is suddenly super cheap; taxis are cheap; trucking is much cheaper; share car services are transformed as a business model. With the human still required you get nothing, so why invest at all?
I think a lot of people would be happy to put their feet up once they'd navigated onto a highway, or have their car go find a parking spot by itself, or come back from one. The sort of stuff Tesla is trying to do is in many ways far more practical except they keep diverting resources to FSD and end up not nailing thee more prosaic conveniences.
Re: Even after $100B, self-driving cars are going nowhere
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hyperloop is still cool because you could have really fast transit over large areas. Mass transit across cities is still quite slow. High speed trains are fine but just not fast enough. Imagine a large city where you could get from one side to the other in only a few minutes.
Musk coined Hyperloop as a distraction to high speed rail. He wanted people to buy Teslas instead of thinking about high speed rail in California. A lot of people fell for his con.
It is a shame that other partial vacuum systems are not being developed. They seem like a useful concept, fast, less air resistance means less energy use. Surely a technology you'd want to have in a future city.
Re: Even after $100B, self-driving cars are going nowhere
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
- 1.3 million deaths worldwide, annually (94% cause by human error) - existing infrastructure (roads) isn't going anywhere (no need to build anything) - reduced traffic congestion (autonomous vehicles can better react/drive) - improved supply chains (autonomous trucks) (can work 0-24) just to name a few off top of my head
> existing infrastructure (roads) isn't going anywhere (no need to build anything) I think that this is a sunk-cost fallacy. Sure, you would need to build infrastructure for trains, but after that trains are now reasonably automated, can carry cargo, and do other things with the exception of stopping at the exact destination you wanted to (in other words, it requires predetermined stops which people outside the US sh…
> with the exception of stopping at the exact destination you wanted to
This, and leaving from the exact starting point you want to, at the exact time you want to, without out-of-the-way intermediate stops that you don't want, without switching lines. I can also easily move a table, couch, 2 shopping carts full of groceries, etc.
It's not an insignificant difference in convenience